Knight v. Abell

New York Supreme Court

Knight v. Abell

1 N.Y.S. 288, 55 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 989, 48 Hun 605, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1298

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 N.Y.S. 288 (Knight v. Abell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knight v. Abell, 1 N.Y.S. 288, 55 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 989, 48 Hun 605, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1298 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Bartlett, J.

This order of arrest was granted in an action upon a contract for the purchase and. sale of eggs and butter, where it was alleged in the complaint that the defendant was guilty of fraud,in contracting or incurring the liability. Code Civil Proc. § 549, subd. 4. The complaint set out only one cause of action. Pour separate sales were specified: one on July 13, one on July 18, and two on August 2, 1887. There was enough in the papers to-[289]*289warrant a finding of fraud as to the sales made on the 2d of August, but not sufficient to warrant such a finding as to the prior sales. In Easton v. Cassidy, 21 Hun, 459, there was but a single cause of action, which was founded, however, upon different demands. Some of these demands were of a character which would support an order of arrest, and others would not. This general term held that the order of arrest was properly vacated. A different view seems to have been entertained, in the Second department, in the case of Fitch v. McMahon, 3 N. Y. St. Rep. 147. That case was subsequently affirmed in the court of appeals, (103 N. Y. 690, 9 N. E. Rep. 497;) but the decision there was placed upon different grounds from that of the general term, and does not touch the questions involved in this appeal. Under these circumstances, we must follow Easton v. Cassidy, supra, and affirm the order appealed from. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Yan Brunt, P. J., and Macomber, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bartlett, J.

This order of arrest was granted in an action upon a contract for the purchase and. sale of eggs and butter, where it was alleged in the complaint that the defendant was guilty of fraud,in contracting or incurring the liability. Code Civil Proc. § 549, subd. 4. The complaint set out only one cause of action. Pour separate sales were specified: one on July 13, one on July 18, and two on August 2, 1887. There was enough in the papers to-[289]*289warrant a finding of fraud as to the sales made on the 2d of August, but not sufficient to warrant such a finding as to the prior sales. In Easton v. Cassidy, 21 Hun, 459, there was but a single cause of action, which was founded, however, upon different demands. Some of these demands were of a character which would support an order of arrest, and others would not. This general term held that the order of arrest was properly vacated. A different view seems to have been entertained, in the Second department, in the case of Fitch v. McMahon, 3 N. Y. St. Rep. 147. That case was subsequently affirmed in the court of appeals, (103 N. Y. 690, 9 N. E. Rep. 497;) but the decision there was placed upon different grounds from that of the general term, and does not touch the questions involved in this appeal. Under these circumstances, we must follow Easton v. Cassidy, supra, and affirm the order appealed from. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Yan Brunt, P. J., and Macomber, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.Y.S. 288, 55 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 989, 48 Hun 605, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-abell-nysupct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack